Residency Rule Hotly Debated Public Speaks Up

City Panel Forgoes Recommendation

January 24, 1990|by GERARD M. SHIELDS, The Morning Call

After a two-hour exchange yesterday with a crowd of about 200 municipal employees, Allentown City Council's Administration Committee will leave the decision on rescinding the city's residency rule to a full council.

The employees, some of whom had to stand in the hallway and lean into the room, supported eliminating the 14-year-old rule, which requires all Allentown employees to live within the city limits.

"Just because we work in the city doesn't give you the right to tell us where we can live," said David Schmidt, an Allentown firefighter who also is president of Local 302 of the International Association of Firefighters.

Raymond Reppert, president of Local 395 of the Service Employees International Union, called council residency supporters hypocrites. Reppert said the city bids work to outside contractors, who don't have to abide by residency rules, leaving city workers at a disadvantage.

"If you want to play the game, I'll play the game," Reppert said. "I'll live in Allentown, I'll die in Allentown, but you buy everything from Allentown."

Police officers said the rule threatens their families. Representatives of the Fraternal Order of Police said a recent survey showed that 76 percent of the city's policemen experienced some kind of threat or damage to their cars or property from people they arrested.

"We work with some of the worst scum of society," said Detective Paul Snyder, president of Queen City Lodge No. 10 of the Allentown FOP. "We go home to our families and into our yards and what do we see? That same scum that would hurt their own families now see you with yours."

The three-member committee declined to put a favorable or unfavorable recommendation on the proposal, a move that could be viewed as a victory for the employees. Committee votes are only a recommendation to the full council but usually are an indication of how the seven-member council will vote.

Two of the Administration Committee's members, Benjamin Howells and Emma Tropiano, are opposed to changing the residency rule. But committee member Peter Faleski urged them to recommend that the issue be moved to council without a recommendation.

After years of unanimous council defeats of the proposal to rescind the residency rule, it now has a chance of passage. The board stands 3-2 against it, with two votes undecided.

New council members Ernest Toth and Dennis Cramsey support the measure; Council President Watson Skinner joins Howells and Tropiano in opposing it. Faleski and Councilman Frank Palencar remain undecided on the issue.

In defending the residency rule, Howells said city employees living outside the city would send a negative image to fellow citizens. Howells again said he believes employees who live in the city will have a vested interest in making the city work efficiently.

"If someone throws a candy wrapper down in Reading, you could care less," Howells said. "If someone dropped that wrapper on your sidewalk, you would think differently about that incident."

Tropiano said she was disappointed by the turnout last night. She said she believes city employees, especially public safety workers such as policemen and firefighters, should live in the city to handle emergency situations.

"The general needs his army on post, not 10 miles away," Tropiano said. "You can't have your cake and eat it, too."

Carl Jacobs, the city's Emergency Medical Service coordinator, told council members that the residency rule was hindering recruitment of paramedics and ambulance workers. Jacobs said training programs for his employees have been canceled because shifts needed to be filled.

The crowd became irate when Howells cut off discussion at 9:30 p.m. Police officer Glenn Kerrigan was about to speak when Howells closed the discussion.

"You're not cutting me off," Kerrigan shouted. "What you're cutting off is my family. . . . My family has 113 years of service to this city."

Howells, who was elected chairman of the committee last night, ended the discussion when many of the employees began repeating the reasons for their opposition to the rule.

"That's the hazards of democracy," Howells told Kerrigan, as the employees began leaving the room.

In other action, the committee recommended against providing sewer and water rebates to low-income senior citizens. In a vote of 2 to 1, the board said the move discriminates against other low-income families.

Howells and Faleski voted against the rebates; Tropiano sided with the city administration in calling for the rebates. Eligible senior citizens would save about $40 a year. The action would cost the city about $33,000.

The proposal will go to council, which last year defeated the plan, 4 to 3.